Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Debiasing Numerical Verdicts and Judicial Discretion: Reflections on Mitigating the Anchoring Effect in Judicial Decision-Making

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Judicial Decision-Making

Part of the book series: Economic Analysis of Law in European Legal Scholarship ((EALELS,volume 14))

Abstract

The process of rendering numerical legal verdicts, such as non-economic damages or prison terms, is as common in legal systems, as it is inconsistent and erratic. The undue variability and unpredictability of numeric outcomes of legal proceedings may be a result of cognitive biases such as the anchoring effect. If anchors affecting verdicts are legally irrelevant, they might lead judges and jurors astray. In this Chapter, we review debiasing methods proposed in the literature to mitigate the anchoring effect in order to evaluate their effectiveness and applicability to the legal system. Then, we focus on an issue often neglected when it comes to the application of debiasing measures in law, namely the concept of judicial discretion. We argue that in cases in which judges are not aware of the biasing factors, they may not exercise their discretion properly. We try to assess which debiasing methods may make the process of rendering numerical verdicts more reasonable and predictable without necessarily eliminating the element of discretion in contexts where its preservation is deemed worthwhile.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See review in Bystranowski et al. (2021).

  2. 2.

    Hastie (2011), Reyna et al. (2015).

  3. 3.

    Hart (2013).

  4. 4.

    Hans et al. (2018).

  5. 5.

    See Hans and Reyna (2011).

  6. 6.

    Kahneman et al. (1998); Hastie (2011).

  7. 7.

    Guthrie and Orr (2006).

  8. 8.

    Furnham and Boo (2011).

  9. 9.

    Bahník et al. (2017).

  10. 10.

    Bahník et al. (2017).

  11. 11.

    Tversky and Kahneman (1974).

  12. 12.

    Quattrone et al. (1984), Epley et al. (2004), Epley and Gilovich (2006), Teovanović (2019).

  13. 13.

    Epley and Gilovich (2006).

  14. 14.

    Epley and Gilovich (2005); Simmons et al. (2010).

  15. 15.

    See e.g. Mussweiler and Strack (1999a).

  16. 16.

    Jacowitz and Kahneman (1995); Wilson et al. (1996), Wong and Kwong (2000).

  17. 17.

    Carroll et al. (2009).

  18. 18.

    Frederick and Mochon (2012).

  19. 19.

    Strack and Mussweiler (1997).

  20. 20.

    Mussweiler and Strack (1999a, b), Chapman and Johnson (1999), Bahník and Strack (2016).

  21. 21.

    Englich et al. (2006); Mussweiler and Strack (2000), Wegener et al. (2010a, b), Bahník and Strack (2016), Chapman and Johnson (1999), Adame (2016).

  22. 22.

    Frederick and Mochon (2012), Mochon and Frederick (2013).

  23. 23.

    Wegener et al. (2010a, b).

  24. 24.

    Wegener et al. (2010a, b).

  25. 25.

    Petty and Wegener (1998, 1999).

  26. 26.

    Frederick and Mochon (2012), Mochon and Frederick (2013).

  27. 27.

    Frederick and Mochon (2012), Mochon and Frederick (2013).

  28. 28.

    Bahník and Strack (2016).

  29. 29.

    Baron (2014).

  30. 30.

    Cf. Zenker and Dahlman (2016).

  31. 31.

    Bell et al. (1988), Baron (2014).

  32. 32.

    Hastie (2011).

  33. 33.

    E.g. Landes and Posner (1993).

  34. 34.

    Ebbesen and Konecni (1975); Martin and Alonso (1997), Fariña et al. (2003), Kim and Chae (2017).

  35. 35.

    Eisenberg et al. (1997).

  36. 36.

    Diamond et al. (2011).

  37. 37.

    Chang et al. (2016).

  38. 38.

    Gronfein and Kinney (1991).

  39. 39.

    See, e.g., Pina-Sánchez and Linacre (2013), Mamak et al. (2020) and the literature cited therein.

  40. 40.

    St Amand and Zamble (2001).

  41. 41.

    See, e.g., Eisenberg et al. (2001).

  42. 42.

    Ariely (2009).

  43. 43.

    Hans et al. (2018), Helm et al. (2020).

  44. 44.

    Englich et al. (2006).

  45. 45.

    Guthrie et al. (2000).

  46. 46.

    Rachlinski and Wistrich (2017).

  47. 47.

    Chapman and Bornstein (1996), Campbell et al. (2015).

  48. 48.

    Bystranowski et al. (2021).

  49. 49.

    “I’m not guilty, but if you find me guilty, I would like to go to prison for two years”, see Ellis (2002).

  50. 50.

    Guthrie and Orr (2006); see also Stein and Drouin (2018).

  51. 51.

    Helm et al. (2020).

  52. 52.

    See McAuliff and Bornstein (2010).

  53. 53.

    Avraham and Bustos (2010); see also Robbennolt and Studebaker (1999); Rachlinski et al. (2015).

  54. 54.

    Stanovich (1999), Larrick (2004).

  55. 55.

    Larrick (2004).

  56. 56.

    See Fischoff (1982), Soll et al. (2014).

  57. 57.

    Fischoff (1982).

  58. 58.

    Cf. scope neglect, Frederick and Fischhoff (1998).

  59. 59.

    For details see Arkes (1991), Larrick (2004).

  60. 60.

    See Furnham and Boo (2011).

  61. 61.

    Lerner and Tetlock (1999).

  62. 62.

    Kruglanski and Freund (1983).

  63. 63.

    For the controversies about reasoned verdicts when it comes to jury decision-making see Burd and Hans (2018).

  64. 64.

    Hastie et al. (1999).

  65. 65.

    The so-called “training in biases” approach, Larrick (2004).

  66. 66.

    Furnham and Boo (2011).

  67. 67.

    Wilson and Brekke (1994).

  68. 68.

    Englich and Soder (2009), Bodenhausen et al. (2000).

  69. 69.

    Soll et al. (2014).

  70. 70.

    McElroy and Dowd (2007).

  71. 71.

    Eroglu and Croxton (2010).

  72. 72.

    Stanovich (2011); Oechssler et al. (2009), but see Bergman et al. (2010) and the discussion in Furnham and Boo (2011).

  73. 73.

    Teovanović (2019).

  74. 74.

    Cf. Szaszi et al. (2017), Oechssler et al. (2009), Frederick (2005).

  75. 75.

    Peters et al. (2006, 2011).

  76. 76.

    See Bornstein (2004), Rowell and Bregant (2014), Hans et al. (2018).

  77. 77.

    Helm et al. (2020).

  78. 78.

    See e.g. Cokely et al. (2018), Sobków et al. (2020).

  79. 79.

    Petrova et al. (2019).

  80. 80.

    See Sobkow et al. (2019).

  81. 81.

    See Helm et al. (2020).

  82. 82.

    Helm et al. (2020).

  83. 83.

    Larrick (2004).

  84. 84.

    Larrick (2004).

  85. 85.

    Sedlmeier (1999).

  86. 86.

    For an example, see Gigerenzer and Hoffrage (1995).

  87. 87.

    Larrick and Soll (2008).

  88. 88.

    Hauth (1962).

  89. 89.

    McAuliff and Bornstein (2010).

  90. 90.

    See e.g. Wong and Kwong (2000).

  91. 91.

    McAuliff and Bornstein (2010).

  92. 92.

    See Kantorowicz-Reznichenko (2015).

  93. 93.

    See Lord et al. (1984); Larrick (2004).

  94. 94.

    See Adame (2016).

  95. 95.

    Zenker et al. (2018).

  96. 96.

    See Bystranowski et al. (2021).

  97. 97.

    Wilson and Brekke (1994).

  98. 98.

    Robbennolt and Studebaker (1999); Rachlinski et al. (2015).

  99. 99.

    Saks et al. (1997).

  100. 100.

    For a comprehensive review of different sentencing guidelines in the US, see Frase (2019).

  101. 101.

    Bennett (2014).

  102. 102.

    See e.g. Porter (2013).

  103. 103.

    Bennett (2014).

  104. 104.

    Bennett (2014).

  105. 105.

    Scott (2010).

  106. 106.

    Porter (2013).

  107. 107.

    Recall Saks et al. (1997).

  108. 108.

    Bennett (2014).

  109. 109.

    Bennett (2014).

  110. 110.

    Frase (2019).

  111. 111.

    Führich (2018).

  112. 112.

    See e.g. Jurišin et al. (2018).

  113. 113.

    Rachlinski (2006).

  114. 114.

    Hart (2012); Dworkin (1963); Himma (1999); Klatt (2007).

  115. 115.

    Klatt (2007).

  116. 116.

    Dworkin (2013).

  117. 117.

    Alexy (2010).

  118. 118.

    Alexy (2010); Klatt (2007).

  119. 119.

    Klatt (2007), p. 517.

  120. 120.

    Hart (2013), p. 653.

  121. 121.

    Shaw (2013).

  122. 122.

    Shaw (2013).

  123. 123.

    Shaw (2013).

  124. 124.

    Hart (2013).

  125. 125.

    Klatt (2007).

  126. 126.

    Hart (2013), p. 664.

  127. 127.

    Shaw (2013).

  128. 128.

    Hart (2013).

  129. 129.

    Hart (2013).

References

  • Adame BJ (2016) Training in the mitigation of anchoring bias: a test of the consider-the-opposite strategy. Learn Motiv 53:36–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexy R (2010) A theory of constitutional rights. Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Ariely D (2009). Predictably irrational, revised and expanded edn. Harper Collings Publishers, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Arkes HR (1991) Costs and benefits of judgment errors: implications for debiasing. Psychol Bull 110(3):486

    Google Scholar 

  • Avraham R, Bustos Á (2010) The unexpected effects of caps on non-economic damages. Int Rev Law Econ 30(4):291–305

    Google Scholar 

  • Bahník Š, Strack F (2016) Overlap of accessible information undermines the anchoring effect. Judgm Decis Mak 11:92–98

    Google Scholar 

  • Bahník Š, Englich B, Strack F (2017) Anchoring effect. In: Pohl RF (ed) Cognitive illusions: intriguing phenomena in thinking, judgment and memory, 2nd edn. Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, pp 223–241

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron J (2014). Heuristics and biases. The Oxford handbook of behavioral economics and the law, pp 3–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell DE, Raiffa H, Tversky A (1988) Descriptive, normative, and prescriptive interactions in decision making. Dec Mak Descript Normat Prescript Interact 1:9–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett MW (2014) Confronting cognitive anchoring effect and blind spot biases in federal sentencing: a modest solution for reforming a fundamental flaw. J Crim Law Criminol 104:489

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergman O, Ellingsen T, Johannesson M, Svensson C (2010) Anchoring and cognitive ability. Econ Lett 107(1):66–68

    Google Scholar 

  • Bodenhausen GV, Gabriel S, Lineberger M (2000) Sadness and susceptibility to judgmental bias: the case of anchoring. Psychol Sci 11(4):320–323

    Google Scholar 

  • Bornstein BH (2004) The impact of different types of expert scientific testimony on mock jurors’ liability verdicts. Psychol Crime Law 10(4):429–446

    Google Scholar 

  • Burd KA, Hans VP (2018) Reasoned verdicts: oversold. Cornell Int Law J 51:319

    Google Scholar 

  • Bystranowski P, Janik B, Próchnicki M, Skórska P (2021) Anchoring effect in legal decision-making: a meta-analysis. Law Hum Behav 45(1):1–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell J, Chao B, Robertson C, Yokum DV (2015) Countering the plaintiff’s anchor: jury simulations to evaluate damages arguments. Iowa Law Rev 101:543

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll SR, Petrusic WM, Leth-Steensen C (2009) Anchoring effects in the judgment of confidence: semantic or numeric priming? Atten Percept Psychophys 71(2):297–307

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang Y, Chen KP, Lin CC (2016) Anchoring effect in real litigation: An empirical study (SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 2726903). Social Science Research Network. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2726903

  • Chapman GB, Bornstein BH (1996) The more you ask for, the more you get: anchoring in personal injury verdicts. Appl Cogn Psychol 10(6):519–540

    Google Scholar 

  • Chapman GB, Johnson EJ (1999) Anchoring, activation, and the construction of values. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 79(2):115–153

    Google Scholar 

  • Cokely ET, Feltz A, Ghazal S, Allan JN, Petrova D, Garcia-Retamero R (2018) Skilled decision theory: from intelligence to numeracy and expertise

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond SS, Rose MR, Murphy B, Meixner J (2011) Damage anchors on real juries. J Empir Leg Stud 8:148–178

    Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin R (1963) Judicial discretion. J Philos 60(21):624–638

    Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin R (2013) Taking rights seriously. A&C Black

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebbesen EB, Konecni VJ (1975) Decision making and information integration in the courts: the setting of bail. J Pers Soc Psychol 32(5):805–821. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.32.5.805

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberg T, Goerdt J, Ostrom B, Rottman D, Wells MT (1997) The predictability of punitive damages. J Leg Stud 26(S2):623–661

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberg T, Rachlinski JJ, Wells MT (2001) Reconciling experimental incoherence with real-world coherence in punitive damages. Stan Law Rev 54:1239

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis LA (2002) Don’t find my client liable, but if you do…: Defense recommendations, liability verdicts, and general damage awards [Unpublished manuscript]. Department of Psychology, University of Illinois

    Google Scholar 

  • Englich B, Soder K (2009). Moody experts---How mood and expertise influence judgmental anchoring. Judgm Decis Mak, 4(1), 41

    Google Scholar 

  • Englich B, Mussweiler T, Strack F (2006) Playing dice with criminal sentences: the influence of irrelevant anchors on experts’ judicial decision making. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 32(2):188–200

    Google Scholar 

  • Epley N, Gilovich T (2005) When effortful thinking influences judgmental anchoring: differential effects of forewarning and incentives on self-generated and externally provided anchors. J Behav Decis Mak 18(3):199–212

    Google Scholar 

  • Epley N, Gilovich T (2006) The anchoring-and-adjustment heuristic: why the adjustments are insufficient. Psychol Sci 17(4):311–318

    Google Scholar 

  • Epley N, Keysar B, Van Boven L, Gilovich T (2004) Perspective taking as egocentric anchoring and adjustment. J Pers Soc Psychol 87(3):327

    Google Scholar 

  • Eroglu C, Croxton KL (2010) Biases in judgmental adjustments of statistical forecasts: the role of individual differences. Int J Forecast 26(1):116–133

    Google Scholar 

  • Fariña F, Arce R, Novo M (2003) Anchoring in judicial decision making. Psychol Spain 7(1):56–65

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischoff B (1982) Debiasing. In: Kahneman D, Slovic SP, Slovic P, Tversky A (eds) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Frase RS (2019) Forty years of American sentencing guidelines: what have we learned? Crime Justice 48(1):79–135

    Google Scholar 

  • Frederick S (2005) Cognitive reflection and decision making. J Econ Perspect 19(4):25–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Frederick SF, Fischhoff B (1998) Scope (in) sensitivity in elicited valuations. Risk Dec Policy 3(2):109–123

    Google Scholar 

  • Frederick SW, Mochon D (2012) A scale distortion theory of anchoring. J Exp Psychol Gen 141(1):124

    Google Scholar 

  • Führich E (2018) Basiswissen Reiserecht: Grundriss des Pauschal-und Individualreiserechts. Vahlen

    Google Scholar 

  • Furnham A, Boo HC (2011) A literature review of the anchoring effect. J Socio-Econ 40(1):35–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer G, Hoffrage U (1995) How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction: frequency formats. Psychol Rev 102(4):684

    Google Scholar 

  • Gronfein WP, Kinney ED (1991) Controlling large malpractice claims: the unexpected impact of damage caps. J Health Polit Policy Law 16(3):441–464

    Google Scholar 

  • Guthrie C, Orr D (2006) Anchoring, information, expertise, and negotiation: new insights from meta-analysis. Ohio State J Disp Resol:06–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Guthrie C, Rachlinski JJ, Wistrich AJ (2000) Inside the judicial mind. Cornell Law Rev 86:777

    Google Scholar 

  • Hans VP, Helm RK, Reyna VF (2018) From meaning to money: translating injury into dollars. Law Hum Behav 42(2):95

    Google Scholar 

  • Hans VP, Reyna VF (2011) To dollars from sense: qualitative to quantitative translation in jury damage awards. J Empir Leg Stud 8:120–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2011.01233.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart HLA (2012) The concept of law. Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart HLA (2013) Discretion. Harv Law Rev 127, 652

    Google Scholar 

  • Hastie R (2011) The challenge to produce useful legal numbers. J Empir Leg Stud 8:6

    Google Scholar 

  • Hastie R, Schkade DA, Payne JW (1999) Juror judgments in civil cases: effects of plaintiff’s requests and plaintiff’s identity on punitive damage awards. Law Hum Behav 23(4):445–470

    Google Scholar 

  • Hauth D (1962) Per diem argument of pain and suffering damages. Clev-Marshall Law Rev 11:495

    Google Scholar 

  • Helm RK, Hans VP, Reyna VF, Reed K (2020) Numeracy in the jury box: numerical ability, meaningful anchors, and damage award decision making. Appl Cogn Psychol 34(2):434–448

    Google Scholar 

  • Himma KE (1999) Judicial discretion and the concept of law. Oxf J Leg Stud 19(1):71–82

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacowitz KE, Kahneman D (1995) Measures of anchoring in estimation tasks. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 21(11):1161–1166

    Google Scholar 

  • Jurišin L, Dragin AS, Pivac T, Kosić K, Blešić I (2018) Frankfurt table as an example of good practices of business ethics in tourism. Turizam 22(4):168–180

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D, Schkade D, Sunstein C (1998) Shared outrage and erratic awards: the psychology of punitive damages. J Risk Uncertain 16(1):49–86

    Google Scholar 

  • Kantorowicz-Reznichenko E (2015) Day-fines: should the rich pay more? Rev Law Econ 11(3):481–501

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim J, Chae S (2017) Anchoring effect of the prosecutor’s demand on sentence: evidence from Korean sexual crime cases. KDI J Econ Policy 39(3):1–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Klatt M (2007) Taking rights less seriously. A structural analysis of judicial discretion. Ratio Juris 20(4):506–529

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruglanski AW, Freund T (1983) The freezing and unfreezing of lay-inferences: effects on impressional primacy, ethnic stereotyping, and numerical anchoring. J Exp Soc Psychol 19(5):448–468

    Google Scholar 

  • Landes WM, Posner RA (1993). The influence of economics on law: a quantitative study. J Law Econ 36(1, Part 2):385–424

    Google Scholar 

  • Larrick RP (2004). Debiasing. Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making, pp 316–338

    Google Scholar 

  • Larrick RP, Soll JB (2008) The MPG illusion. Sci-N Y Wash 320(5883):1593

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerner JS, Tetlock PE (1999) Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychol Bull 125(2):255

    Google Scholar 

  • Lord CG, Lepper MR, Preston E (1984) Considering the opposite: a corrective strategy for social judgment. J Pers Soc Psychol 47(6):1231

    Google Scholar 

  • Mamak K, Dudek J, Koniewski M, Kwiatkowski D (2020) A failed attempt to radically reduce inter-court sentencing disparities by legislation: empirical evidence from Poland. Eur J Criminol 1477370820952729

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin EG, Alonso CH (1997) Influence of the prosecutor’s plea on the judge’s sentencing in sexual crimes: hypothesis of the theory of anchoring by Tversky and Kahneman. In: Redondo S, Garrido V, Pérez J (eds) Advances in psychology and law: international contributions. Walter de Gruyter, pp 215–226

    Google Scholar 

  • McAuliff BD, Bornstein BH (2010) All anchors are not created equal: the effects of per diem versus lump sum requests on pain and suffering awards. Law Hum Behav 34(2):164–174

    Google Scholar 

  • McElroy T, Dowd K (2007) Susceptibility to anchoring effects: how openness-to-experience influences responses to anchoring cues. Judgm Decis Mak 2(1):48

    Google Scholar 

  • Mochon D, Frederick S (2013) Anchoring in sequential judgments. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 122(1):69–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Mussweiler T, Strack F (1999a) Hypothesis-consistent testing and semantic priming in the anchoring paradigm: a selective accessibility model. J Exp Soc Psychol 35(2):136–164

    Google Scholar 

  • Mussweiler T, Strack F (1999b) Comparing is believing: a selective accessibility model of judgmental anchoring. Eur Rev Soc Psychol 10(1):135–167

    Google Scholar 

  • Mussweiler T, Strack F (2000) Numeric judgments under uncertainty: the role of knowledge in anchoring. J Exp Soc Psychol 36(5):495–518

    Google Scholar 

  • Oechssler J, Roider A, Schmitz PW (2009) Cognitive abilities and behavioral biases. J Econ Behav Organ 72(1):147–152

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters E, Västfjäll D, Slovic P, Mertz CK, Mazzocco K, Dickert S (2006) Numeracy and decision making. Psychol Sci 17(5):407–413

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters E, Hart PS, Fraenkel L (2011) Informing patients: the influence of numeracy, framing, and format of side effect information on risk perceptions. Med Decis Mak 31(3):432–436

    Google Scholar 

  • Petrova DG, Traczyk J, Garcia-Retamero R (2019) What shapes the probability weighting function? Influence of affect, numeric competencies, and information formats. J Behav Decis Mak 32(2):124–139. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petty RE, Wegener DT (1998) Matching versus mismatching attitude functions: implications for scrutiny of persuasive messages. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 24(3):227–240. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167298243001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petty RE, Wegener DT (1999) The elaboration likelihood model: current status and controversies. In: Chaiken S, Trope Y (eds) Dual-process theories in social psychology. Guilford Press, The New York, pp 37–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Pina-Sánchez J, Linacre R (2013) Sentence consistency in England and Wales: evidence from the crown court sentencing survey. Br J Criminol 53(6):1118–1138. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azt040

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter WR (2013) Federal Judges Need Competing Information to rival the misleading guidelines at sentencing. Fed Senten Rep 26(1):28–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Quattrone GA, Lawrence CP, Warren DL, Souza-Silva K, Finkel SE, Andrus DE (1984) Explorations in anchoring: The effects of prior range, anchor extremity, and suggestive hints. Unpublished Manuscript

    Google Scholar 

  • Rachlinski JJ (2006) Bottom-up versus top-down lawmaking. Univ Chicago Law Rev, pp 933–964

    Google Scholar 

  • Rachlinski JJ, Wistrich AJ (2017) Judging the judiciary by the numbers: empirical research on judges. Ann Rev Law Soc Sci 13:203–229

    Google Scholar 

  • Rachlinski JJ, Wistrich AJ, Guthrie C (2015) Can judges make reliable numeric judgments: distorted damages and skewed sentences. Ind Law J 90:695

    Google Scholar 

  • Reyna VF, Hans VP, Corbin JC, Yeh R, Lin K, Royer C (2015) The gist of juries: testing a model of damage award decision making. Psychol Public Policy Law 21(3):280

    Google Scholar 

  • Robbennolt JK, Studebaker CA (1999) Anchoring in the courtroom: the effects of caps on punitive damages. Law Hum Behav 23(3):353–373

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowell A, Bregant J (2014) Numeracy and legal decision making. Ariz St Law J 46:191

    Google Scholar 

  • Saks MJ, Hollinger LA, Wissler RL, Evans DL, Hart AJ (1997) Reducing variability in civil jury awards. Law Hum Behav 21(3):243–256

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott RW (2010) Inter-judge sentencing disparity after booker: a first look. Stan Law Rev 63:1

    Google Scholar 

  • Sedlmeier P (1999) Improving statistical reasoning: theoretical models and practical implications. Psychology Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw GC (2013) HLA Hart’s lost essay: discretion and the legal process school. Harv Law Rev 127:666

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmons JP, LeBoeuf RA, Nelson LD (2010) The effect of accuracy motivation on anchoring and adjustment: do people adjust from provided anchors? J Pers Soc Psychol 99(6):917

    Google Scholar 

  • Sobkow A, Fulawka K, Tomczak P, Zjawiony P, Traczyk J (2019) Does mental number line training work? The effects of cognitive training on real-life mathematics, numeracy, and decision making. J Exp Psychol Appl 25(3):372–385. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sobkow A, Olszewska A, Traczyk J (2020) Multiple numeric competencies predict decision outcomes beyond fluid intelligence and cognitive reflection. Intelligence 80:101452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2020.101452. ISSN: 0160-2896

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soll JB, Milkman KL, Payne JW (2014) A user’s guide to debiasing

    Google Scholar 

  • St Amand MD, Zamble E (2001) Impact of information about sentencing decisions on public attitudes toward the criminal justice system. Law Hum Behav 25(5):515–528

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanovich K (2011) Rationality and the reflective mind. Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanovich KE (1999) Who is rational?: Studies of individual differences in reasoning. Psychology Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein CT, Drouin M (2018) Cognitive bias in the courtroom: combating the anchoring effect through tactical debiasing. Univ San Francisco Law Rev 52(3):393–428

    Google Scholar 

  • Strack F, Mussweiler T (1997) Explaining the enigmatic anchoring effect: mechanisms of selective accessibility. J Pers Soc Psychol 73(3):437

    Google Scholar 

  • Szaszi B, Szollosi A, Palfi B, Aczel B (2017) The cognitive reflection test revisited: exploring the ways individuals solve the test. Think Reason 23(3):207–234

    Google Scholar 

  • Teovanović P (2019) Individual differences in anchoring effect: evidence for the role of insufficient adjustment. Eur J Psychol 15(1):8

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185(4157):1124–1131

    Google Scholar 

  • Wegener DT, Petty RE, Blankenship KL, Detweiler-Bedell B (2010a) Elaboration and numerical anchoring: breadth, depth, and the role of (non-) thoughtful processes in anchoring theories. J Consum Psychol 20(1):28–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Wegener DT, Petty RE, Blankenship KL, Detweiler-Bedell B (2010b) Elaboration and numerical anchoring: implications of attitude theories for consumer judgment and decision making. J Consum Psychol 20(1):5–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson TD, Brekke N (1994) Mental contamination and mental correction: unwanted influences on judgments and evaluations. Psychol Bull 116(1):117

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson TD, Houston CE, Etling KM, Brekke N (1996) A new look at anchoring effects: basic anchoring and its antecedents. J Exp Psychol Gen 125(4):387

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong KFE, Kwong JYY (2000) Is 7300 m equal to 7.3 km? Same semantics but different anchoring effects. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 82(2):314–333

    Google Scholar 

  • Zenker F, Dahlman C (2016). Debiasing and rule of law. In: Feteris E, Kloosterhuis H, Plug J, Smith C (eds) Legal argumentation and the rule of law. Eleven International Publishing, pp 217–219

    Google Scholar 

  • Zenker F, Dahlman C, Bååth R, Sarwar F (2018) Reasons pro et contra as a debiasing technique in legal contexts. Psychol Rep 121(3):511–526

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Jagiellonian University, Kraków, Poland

    Maciej Próchnicki

  2. University of Silesia in Katowice, Katowice, Poland

    Bartosz Janik

  3. Jagiellonian University, Kraków, Poland

    Piotr Bystranowski

Authors
  1. Maciej Próchnicki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bartosz Janik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Piotr Bystranowski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maciej Próchnicki .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Jagiellonian University, Kraków, Poland

    Piotr Bystranowski

  2. University of Silesia in Katowice, Katowice, Poland

    Bartosz Janik

  3. Jagiellonian University, Kraków, Poland

    Maciej Próchnicki

Additional information

This work was supported by the National Science Centre, Poland, grants no. 2017/25/N/HS5/00944 (Maciej Próchnicki), 2020/36/C/HS5/00111 (Bartosz Janik), and 2016/23/N/HS5/00928 (Piotr Bystranowski).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Próchnicki, M., Janik, B., Bystranowski, P. (2022). Debiasing Numerical Verdicts and Judicial Discretion: Reflections on Mitigating the Anchoring Effect in Judicial Decision-Making. In: Bystranowski, P., Janik, B., Próchnicki, M. (eds) Judicial Decision-Making. Economic Analysis of Law in European Legal Scholarship, vol 14. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-11744-2_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-11744-2_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-11743-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-11744-2

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation